Full Frame vs. Crop - Quick Question

manjuice

manjuice

manjuice

Associate
Joined
7 Mar 2007
Posts
1,244
When comparing a full frame and a crop sensor camera, both using the same lens, same aperture, same ISO, same exposure etc.

Will the full frame have a shorter shutter speed (compared to crop sensor) because it can capture more light? And if so, by how many stops?
 
Not directly, but you will be able to push the ISO higher on full frame without losing quality, thus faster shutter speed.
 
42zx said:
Not directly, but you will be able to push the ISO higher on full frame without losing quality, thus faster shutter speed.
Click to expand...

this +1

my 6D will happily use ISO 6400 / 12800 with little lose of quality Vs crop, most crop can only achieve 800 / 1600 ish (nikon is less, nikon has better dynamic range but worse ISO performance! )
 
Well not really. A full frame camera and a crop camera may have exactly the same ISO ability as each other. We tend to think that full frames are better at ISO because the pixel density on a full frame sensor tends to be lower than on a cropped sensor - meaning the individual light gathering cells are larger, making them more capable of capturing light.

If I had two cameras, one full frame and one crop sensor, and both had identical sensor cell density - I would have exactly the same shutter speed on both.

A similar misconception is for focal lengths. A 200mm lens on a cropped sensor or full frame sensor offers exactly the same magnification. You are just looking at a small field of view on the cropped sensor.

If you are struggling with this concept - think about this - take a full frame sensor with a 200mm lens, and take a photo. Then crop in software down to a cropped sensor image size, say 1.5x reduction in area. Has the lens changed? No - the magnification is exactly the same as what it was before the crop.
 
Bluelion said:
Well not really. A full frame camera and a crop camera may have exactly the same ISO ability as each other.
Click to expand...

total and complete rubbish, the reason manufactures charge more for FF is for the simple fact they perform better in low light with better ISO performance, making images sharper and with less noise, with higher detail in high lights and shadows...... get your facts right!

otherwise everyone would buy a cheap crop than FF would die out!! :rolleyes:

Bluelion said:
A 200mm lens on a cropped sensor or full frame sensor offers exactly the same magnification. You are just looking at a small field of view on the cropped sensor.

If you are struggling with this concept - think about this - take a full frame sensor with a 200mm lens, and take a photo. Then crop in software down to a cropped sensor image size, say 1.5x reduction in area. Has the lens changed? No - the magnification is exactly the same as what it was before the crop.
Click to expand...

dude you are right but not answering the OP's question!
 
Last edited:
buzzlightweight said:
this +1

my 6D will happily use ISO 6400 / 12800 with little lose of quality Vs crop, most crop can only achieve 800 / 1600 ish (nikon is less, nikon has better dynamic range but worse ISO performance! )
Click to expand...

Just to clear up this untruth.
With regards to stills, Nikons actually have better dynamic range and ISO performance.
 
Bluelion said:
Well not really. A full frame camera and a crop camera may have exactly the same ISO ability as each other Snip.
Click to expand...

No they don't in any kind of practical or real world application. It's unsound logic like this that confuses people who are new to this.

Yes perhaps per mm2, crop sensors and full frame sensors have the same performance (if based on same tech), but full frame sensors have much more area.

Bluelion said:
We tend to think that full frames are better at ISO because the pixel density on a full frame sensor tends to be lower than on a cropped sensor - meaning the individual light gathering cells are larger, making them more capable of capturing light.

If I had two cameras, one full frame and one crop sensor, and both had identical sensor cell density - I would have exactly the same shutter speed on both.
Click to expand...

Do you mean ISO?
If so no you wouldn't, the full frame sensor would have better ISO at any given output size, even at the same pixel density.
 
buzzlightweight said:
this +1

my 6D will happily use ISO 6400 / 12800 with little lose of quality Vs crop, most crop can only achieve 800 / 1600 ish (nikon is less, nikon has better dynamic range but worse ISO performance! )
Click to expand...


Not sure where you got that from but Nikon cameras have better DR, high ISO performance and colour depth (and it makes sense that if one is better they are all better but they are effectively measures of the same constraints)


As to the Question in the OP, not really, shutter speed will be the same but the FoV will be very different
 
buzzlightweight said:
total and complete rubbish, the reason manufactures charge more for FF is for the simple fact they perform better in low light with better ISO performance, making images sharper and with less noise, with higher detail in high lights and shadows...... get your facts right!

otherwise everyone would buy a cheap crop than FF would die out!! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


That is not necessarily true, it is only true for a given sensor technology. Crops sensors could easily outperform FF sensors, e.g. Nikon Crop DSLR like the D7100 have a higher DR than Canon FF sensors at the moment because the Canon ADC is not very good. One can easily imagine a crop sensor have much better ISO performance than a FF sensor given different generations of sensor. Already modern Nikon/Sony sensors basally outperform the earlier Canon FF sensor for example. This isiot a Canon bash, just an observation of facts. There is no magical power in a FF sensor, it is just bigger. IF that increase in surface area is beaten by an increase Quantum Efficiency of a smaller sensor then the smaller sensor will perform better.


The main difference in the pricing is the cost to manufacture, FF sensors are very expensive.
 
King Damager said:
I refuse to push mine higher than 5000 in most cases xD

kd
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, how often do you use high ISO though ?, with all these uber fast lenses these days do you ever need it ?

This question is from a noob lol

I'd love a FF camera, but unless you are a pro / semi pro and generate income from it I don't think it's worth it. Of course you might just be rich, or a die hard amateur, or maybe just like to wave willys on the Internet also hah

I know a portrait photographer who won some best in country award or similar using a 7d crop. She is full time. She has only just moved to a 5d after years of snapping with crop.....

Goes to show, if you are good at capturing the moment and know your stuff you can get good results without spending 3k
 
If I remember correctly ISO just specifies the exposure index, the camera then adjusts sensor gain to reach that index based on your selected shutter speed, aperture and the gathered light metering data, because a larger sensor gathers more light, an image taken on a larger sensor will have less noise at any given viewing size than on a smaller one assuming they are technologically equivalent.

A caveat is that exposure index is determined individually by each manufacturer so two different camera models can potentially have somewhat different exposure levels despite using the same lens, aperture, shutter speed and ISO setting.

Flukester said:
Hmmmm, how often do you use high ISO though ?, with all these uber fast lenses these days do you ever need it ?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately yes, whereas photographs were once a novelty with low expectations and demands, you're now expected to produce large, sharp images of demanding subject matter in poor environments, eg. indoor sports arenas. With such a high shutter speed requirement, the inability to use flash due to regulations or the aforementioned shutter speeds. Combined with the typically poor lighting conditions of your average venue, even with an f/2.8 lens you can find yourself using higher ISO settings that you would like. Of course there are some potential issues with using large apertures in and of themselves such as focusing on the wrong plane and too shallow a depth of field. Never mind the expense and size/weight considerations of zoom or long focal length ones.
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
That is not necessarily true, it is only true for a given sensor technology. Crops sensors could easily outperform FF sensors, e.g. Nikon Crop DSLR like the D7100 have a higher DR than Canon FF sensors at the moment because the Canon ADC is not very good. One can easily imagine a crop sensor have much better ISO performance than a FF sensor given different generations of sensor. Already modern Nikon/Sony sensors basally outperform the earlier Canon FF sensor for example. This isiot a Canon bash, just an observation of facts. There is no magical power in a FF sensor, it is just bigger. IF that increase in surface area is beaten by an increase Quantum Efficiency of a smaller sensor then the smaller sensor will perform better.


The main difference in the pricing is the cost to manufacture, FF sensors are very expensive.
Click to expand...

This, also the type of use will determine the ultimate results as well. If you are focal length limited and cannot get closer with the FF camera to frame the shot the same as the crop, then any FF noise benefits can be easily lost if you then have to up-res the FF shot to the same MP as the crop for your end print. You only get the benefit of the larger FF sensor if you don't have to crop. Once FF sensors hit the same pixel density as the crop sensors this will obviously no longer be the case.
 
buzzlightweight said:
iv used 20k with no discernible lose in quality, dont be afraid to push your 6D higher KD
Click to expand...

No loss in quality compared to what? Statements like this can be misleading as it infers the results at ISO 12,8k and above are as clean as ISO 100 which is clearly not the case :)
 
Rojin said:
No loss in quality compared to what? Statements like this can be misleading as it infers the results at ISO 12,8k and above are as clean as ISO 100 which is clearly not the case :)
Click to expand...

Your statement is incorrect, you just inferred your opinion that is that iso 12,8k is the same as iso 100, where did i say cleaner than iso 100, where did anyone say that? i said no discernible lose in quality.
Its a broad statement, if i had said 20k is the same as 100 then yes i would be wrong.
I was trying to say to KD that higher iso's on a 6D are very useable, i know he has one hence me saying

dont be afraid to push your 6D higher KD
Click to expand...
 
buzzlightweight said:
Your statement is incorrect, you just inferred your opinion that is that iso 12,8k is the same as iso 100, where did i say cleaner than iso 100, where did anyone say that? i said no discernible lose in quality.
Its a broad statement, if i had said 20k is the same as 100 then yes i would be wrong.
I was trying to say to KD that higher iso's on a 6D are very useable, i know he has one hence me saying
Click to expand...

You said you've used the camera at ISO 20k with no discernible loss in quality. That as a statement is utterly useless as you give no reference to quality. That is what I clearly questioned, and gave you a clear example of why what you said is misleading and of normal use.

Saying that higher ISO's are useable on the 6D is something completely different to "no discernible loss in quality".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom